Iphone data

Iphone data

Given the following scenarios: 1) Should the carrier Unlock my Iphone after my contract is up so i can use it with other carriers? and 2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)? note: Let not include the topic about unlocking the phone yet. what are your guys thoughts out there? thanks

Re: Iphone data

CuriousUser wrote:

Given the following scenarios: 1) Should the carrier Unlock my Iphone after my contract is up so i can use it with other carriers? and 2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)? note: Let not include the topic about unlocking the phone yet. what are your guys thoughts out there? thanks

Nope AT&T or apple WILL NOT unlock your iphone. as for the bill i do not think it will not be cheaper because you have your own phone.

Re: Iphone data

TimStrader wrote:

Actually ATT can, and will, unlock the 4 and 4S. If you buy new for full price they can unlock and if you have one out of contract, they will unlock for a price.

Do you have a source for this? Neither Apple or AT&T have ever unlocked a locked US AT&T iPhone, regardless of the price or whether a contract or not is involved. The only factory unlocked US iPhones are the 4s Apple (only) started selling earlier in the year and the 4Ss they are going to start selling shortly. Those are being sold brand new and as specifically unlocked.

Re: Iphone data

2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)?

Yes, the monthly fee should be cheaper.

In reality no, it is not cheaper.

why? Service cost = service cost. It has nothing to do with a subsidized or a non-susbsidzed phone. They only difference is on a subsidized phone you are locked to two years to pay off the amount that the carrier covers on the cost of you phone, on a unsubsidized phone that is not required.

Re: Iphone data

2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)?

Yes, the monthly fee should be cheaper.

In reality no, it is not cheaper.

why? Service cost = service cost. It has nothing to do with a subsidized or a non-susbsidzed phone. They only difference is on a subsidized phone you are locked to two years to pay off the amount that the carrier covers on the cost of you phone, on a unsubsidized phone that is not required.

It does make sense that should be cheaper. If you buy a subsidised iPhone for 199 vs. 599 for a no-contract one, you pay off that $400 difference over the life of the contract. If your phone bill is $100/month, over 2 years you paid a total of $2400, of which $400 went to pay off the subsidised price, so the remaining $2000 was for the service. If you bought a no-contract phone, and had the same exact plan for 2 years, you'd be paying $2400 for the same service over the same time. This is a pretty simplified example, but I think it shows the general idea.

Re: Iphone data

2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)?

Yes, the monthly fee should be cheaper.

In reality no, it is not cheaper.

why? Service cost = service cost. It has nothing to do with a subsidized or a non-susbsidzed phone. They only difference is on a subsidized phone you are locked to two years to pay off the amount that the carrier covers on the cost of you phone, on a unsubsidized phone that is not required.

It does make sense that should be cheaper. If you buy a subsidised iPhone for 199 vs. 599 for a no-contract one, you pay off that $400 difference over the life of the contract. If your phone bill is $100/month, over 2 years you paid a total of $2400, of which $400 went to pay off the subsidised price, so the remaining $2000 was for the service. If you bought a no-contract phone, and had the same exact plan for 2 years, you'd be paying $2400 for the same service over the same time. This is a pretty simplified example, but I think it shows the general idea.

no it does not, the subsidized amount is returned by the 2 year contract, or the etf id the contract is canceled before the termination. You are assuming that the subsidized amount is built into the service cost, if that was true then the service cost would be different depending on the phone that is chosen - retail cost for a Samsung Galaxy S II is 649.99 while retail cost for a ATT impluse 4G is 399.99 - so by your theory the samsung Galaxy S II service contract should be higher becasue the phone is 250.00 more over the life of the contract

Re: Iphone data

2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)?

Yes, the monthly fee should be cheaper.

In reality no, it is not cheaper.

why? Service cost = service cost. It has nothing to do with a subsidized or a non-susbsidzed phone. They only difference is on a subsidized phone you are locked to two years to pay off the amount that the carrier covers on the cost of you phone, on a unsubsidized phone that is not required.

Ordinarily, I would think that that the service cost is irrelevant to the cost of the device, with or without a subsidy. However, in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, AT&T's CEO indicated that people get phones for less cost than their value on contract and pay back the remaining value over the life of the contract. If that is the case, then the price of phones (probably an average) is built into AT&T's service fees. That is their choice to do so as a business. This doesn't negate the fact that there is a cost for service, a calculation of a reasonable profit, then an additional amount built in to AT&T's service fees to cover the cost of the phones. If there weren't an additional amount for the cost of the phone built into the monthly service fee, then AT&T would be taking a loss on the cost of the device, no matter how long your contract is. Somehow, I don't believe that AT&T is taking this loss.

Re: Iphone data

CuriousUser wrote:

2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)?

No, because if/when you provide your own phone you are not required to sign a two-year contract in order to establish service for said phone. On a month-to-month, you can cancel at any time and you are not subject to an early termination fee. Now if you feel that AT&T should offer a lower monthly fee for those who chose not to purchase and activate a subsidized-cost phone, then perhaps a possible compromise might be that AT&T could offer a lower monthly fee...provided that you sign a two-year contract and be subject to the early termination fee.

Re: Iphone data

21stNow wrote:

Ordinarily, I would think that that the service cost is irrelevant to the cost of the device, with or without a subsidy. However, in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, AT&T's CEO indicated that people get phones for less cost than their value on contract and pay back the remaining value over the life of the contract. If that is the case, then the price of phones (probably an average) is built into AT&T's service fees. That is their choice to do so as a business. This doesn't negate the fact that there is a cost for service, a calculation of a reasonable profit, then an additional amount built in to AT&T's service fees to cover the cost of the phones. If there weren't an additional amount for the cost of the phone built into the monthly service fee, then AT&T would be taking a loss on the cost of the device, no matter how long your contract is. Somehow, I don't believe that AT&T is taking this loss.

Yup. Instead of giving an increased service cost for every different kind of phone they offer, including phones that were not sold by them, AT&T decided to take that expense and just figure it in to the base service cost. In theory they could charge a bit more to people with subsidized phones so that they could charge a bit less to people who bring in their own equipment, but they've chosen to keep things a bit simpler and not give people an incentive to bring in their own equipment.

Re: Iphone data

2) if they lock you in a two year contract to recoupe the money on the discounted iphone, the shouldnt the monthly fee be cheaper if i provide my own iphone (or any smart phone)?

Yes, the monthly fee should be cheaper.

In reality no, it is not cheaper.

why? Service cost = service cost. It has nothing to do with a subsidized or a non-susbsidzed phone. They only difference is on a subsidized phone you are locked to two years to pay off the amount that the carrier covers on the cost of you phone, on a unsubsidized phone that is not required.

It does make sense that should be cheaper. If you buy a subsidised iPhone for 199 vs. 599 for a no-contract one, you pay off that $400 difference over the life of the contract. If your phone bill is $100/month, over 2 years you paid a total of $2400, of which $400 went to pay off the subsidised price, so the remaining $2000 was for the service. If you bought a no-contract phone, and had the same exact plan for 2 years, you'd be paying $2400 for the same service over the same time. This is a pretty simplified example, but I think it shows the general idea.

no it does not, the subsidized amount is returned by the 2 year contract, or the etf id the contract is canceled before the termination. You are assuming that the subsidized amount is built into the service cost, if that was true then the service cost would be different depending on the phone that is chosen - retail cost for a Samsung Galaxy S II is 649.99 while retail cost for a ATT impluse 4G is 399.99 - so by your theory the samsung Galaxy S II service contract should be higher becasue the phone is 250.00 more over the life of the contract

Your argument makes no sense. How then is AT&T making money back by tying you into a two year contract since the only thing you pay the service charge, which is the same whether you have a contract or not? Granted, if you don't have a contract, you can leave at any time. However, if you choose to stay for two years with a no contract, you end up paying exactly the same total in monthy charges as someone who is locked into a two year contract.

Note I said it makes sense that it SHOULD be cheaper, not that it WAS. When you buy a contract phone, some of the montly service charge would go to paying off your subsidy. The rest goes for the cost of AT&T providing the service and AT&T's profit. With a no contract phone, all of the payment goes for AT&T providing the service and their profit. AT&T simply makes more profit per month off people who have no contract than people who have subsidized phones with a contract for the same monthly service. That's the way it actually works. If AT&T would choose to get the same monthly profit from people with a subsidized contract and those without, the monthly prices should be different. But, they aren't.